Will Twins.TV Save the Twins? A Look at the Financial Future

[Peter Labuza]

The Twins will partner with MLB to produce and broadcast games in 2025, expanding their reach across Twins Territory and giving cable cutters a streaming option. But will people pay in?

Image courtesy of © Matt Blewett-Imagn Images

It's the announcement that feels finally a decade in the making: Minnesotans can finally stream Twins games.

As the Bally Sports bankruptcy court threw a wrench in recent weeks, three teams—the Twins, Guardians, and Brewers—have officially partnered with MLB for broadcasts in 2025. This follows the same track that the Diamondbacks, Rockies, and Padres followed last year. As Dave St. Peter told the media, "This will eliminate all blackouts as we've come to know and hate them." 

The Twins have thus announced Twins.TV, an MLB-run streaming service for the games. The spine of this will be a direct-to-consumer subscription, which will likely follow the same pricing structure as teams sold them for last year—$20 for a month or $100 for the season. For those who already subscribe to MLB.tv and want the full in- and out-of-market experience, the price tag will be higher, but the difference from what you were already paying might be minimal.

Beyond that, the team will likely partner with most major cable services—including Xfinity—for those who remain cable subscribers. As noted in the press release, the Twins should now be available to 4.4 million fans within their projected area, compared to less than a quarter of that in 2024.

But that newfound reach comes with a price. A million people paid for access to Twins games as part of their monthly cable bill, whether they wanted it or not. Companies like Xfinity and DirecTV paid the network carriage fees, then passed the costs to their subscribers. Now, the Twins will face a darker question: Just how popular are they, when fans need to opt in rather than out--and when the price they're paying is suddenly much more visible to them? 

The Twins reportedly received around 80% of their 2023 intake of $54 million to remain with Bally Sports North for 2024, implying a take around $40 million. That will be hard to match, at least in the short term. Even St. Peter acknowledged that in his remarks Tuesday.

The Padres scored around 40,000 subscribers on their direct-to-consumer service last year, which would generate revenues around $5 million. The Minnesota area is certainly bigger than San Diego, though it's also a space where the Twins have to compete against quite a few more sports for attention. Many are already cutting streaming services left and right; is $20 a month for a single team enticing enough?

That's not all the money, of course, with various deals being made with the cable providers. San Diego had perhaps five different ones, though details on how much they yielded were scarce. That slice of the pie figures to be tiny. We're talking, now, about the league going to the carriers with hat in hand, needing to get their channel aired. They don't have a package of sports that can deliver year-round content, or even 24-hour supplemental content around the games, to offer. It's unlikely the carriage fees associated with this model will be even 10 percent of what Bally could command, though we're obviously doing an apples and oranges thing there. Nonetheless, there will be some money beyond the raw DTC revenues. Furthermore, MLB and the Players Association recently struck a deal to send more money to teams in this situation, though the specifics again are unclear. 

The Rockies might give us a better sense of what might happen to the Twins, given they are currently valued similarly by Forbes. According to research, Colorado's switch over from their broadcast deal with AT&T to MLB cost the team about $55 million in annual value.

If you thus figure the Twins to lose $30-40 million in value tied in with their broadcast rights, you might also have a very good idea where they may have already balanced those books. St. Peter isn't expecting the lost cashflow to further reduce payroll, because the team reduced its payroll to match the new reality a year early. The president informed reporters he expects less money than what Ballys provided in 2024, and Joe Pohlad's recent comments had already planned for this announcement. In effect, last year's slash was about this very eventuality.

The big question is whether this is too late. The Twins had this same opportunity last year. Now, they lost fans to that lower payroll, as well as an Xfinity blackout that kept them off TV for three months and a disastrous September collapse. Twins fans might have made their peace with the drop in payroll, in exchange for being able to stream games the way the team initially promised. Instead, they got the stick without the carrot for a full year, and it turned a lot of people off. The team is now in a pretty different position than are the Brewers, Diamondbacks, Guardians, or Padres, mostly because of those clubs' better on-field performances.

The best way to get fans to subscribe may simply be to win games and a lot of them.

On the broader side, Manfred continues to bring teams into his fold, with six teams secured and more likely to follow. The Texas Rangers also announced the end of their partnership with Bally, but have decided to explore production and distribution options that might present themselves locally, rather than lump in with the league. The Tigers and Royals, like the Guardians, are still playing postseason games, and unlike the Guardians, they have a contract with Diamond Sports Group to stay on their local flavors of Bally Sports through next year. However, it wouldn't be surprising at all if that deal were vacated, given Diamond's recent indications in court, and at that point, both Detroit and Kansas City could come inside the tent, too.

Ultimately, the league would like to be able to bundle and sell streaming packages featuring all of its teams directly, but they need way more clubs to be dependent on them before that can happen. Nor does it make much sense to plunge forward with that project sans many of the biggest draws in the sports. Huge contracts paying hundreds of millions to big-market behemoths still stand in the way of that happening. In other words, until top teams like the Dodgers or Yankees run out of ways to make orders of magnitude more than the teams leaning on the league will get, the package deal is a non-starter, and solutions are likely to remain piecemeal.

All of MLB will be facing a war for eyeballs, and now the Twins are going to be front and center of that battle. Those eyeballs all mean money, so winning those battles and skirmishes will be essential. The Twins' medium-term spending power depends on it.

View full article

[DJL44]

It's a net loss to the league revenue but the Twins are in the same situation as 16-20 other teams. The Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs and Dodgers will be able to use their revenue advantage to get the top players but the Twins should be on a level playing field with the rest of the league.

[bean5302]

Revenue will still come from broadcasting on cable or OTA or whatever other method gets used. There just won't be the value in the "exclusive" rights part of the package. I don't know what the numbers look like, but it certainly seems like a big part of the pie is being missed in these analysis'

It's not like people without an Twins.TV sub won't be able to watch the games. The games will still be broadcast on a network for which the cable providers will pay a fee. It'll be lower, but not that much lower (from like $40MM to $4MM) for Minnesota.

[Whitey333]

I'm glad the Twins are making a decision with their TV package early this off season.  I hope it all works out well and that it's affordable.  So if the same things happen to the T wolves and Wild I suppose we would have to pay an extra $20 or so per month for each of those teams.  This could get very speedy to watch local sports teams.

[Jocko87]

It will be very interesting to see how many subscribers they pick up.  It's quite a different situation as the Padres in that there was no disruption in Padres coverage so a much smaller part of a smaller target group was even forced to look for a streaming option. Twins fans have been wanting something like this for years.

The more I think about it, 40k would be a huge disappointment. 

[DocBauer]

I sometimes wonder if MAYBE part of the big payroll slash of last year was to put aside a little $ to prepare for this year? I mean, they did still end up with a partial TV deal didn't they? Or maybe I'm offering them too much credit.

I don't know that there was any choice but to go this route, but it's the right one. Less $.now, but with room to grow future earnings as your fan base grows, and comes back, and new revenue streams open up. There are plenty of ticked off fans angry for good reason. But if the Twins can win games, fans will come back. And not only is $100 for a full season very reasonable, but at $20 a month, "lost fans" can decide month to month how interested they really are.

Better revenue sharing is still a major key to the future of MLB. But as I understand it, the streaming of MLB does not preclude cable and satellite fans from continuing to watch via their chosen platform. What there is from streaming, cable/satellite, revenue sharing, and the new "extra $ bump" being paid to teams no longer on the big TV $ bandwagon will keep teams and the game afloat. But it's going to take time for all of this to sort itself out and continue to grow.

But step one was to make this change, get out in front, and prepare for the future. That also means fan inclusion again, something that has been sorely missing the past few years.

[dex8425]

I'll definitely subscribe for 20 bucks a month and I didn't watch the Twins at all last year. No thanks to paying 100+ a month for FUBO tv. 

[dex8425]

25 minutes ago, Whitey333 said:

I'm glad the Twins are making a decision with their TV package early this off season.  I hope it all works out well and that it's affordable.  So if the same things happen to the T wolves and Wild I suppose we would have to pay an extra $20 or so per month for each of those teams.  This could get very speedy to watch local sports teams.

Seems like if you want to watch wolves, wild AND Twins then you will probably pay for TV, either cable or satellite or FUBO. I don't care to pay for watching wolves and wild games. I'll gladly pay $20/month to watch the twins in the summer though, especially if I can watch it on my ipad and carry it around while doing other stuff. 

[TheLeviathan]

Save them?  In the short term they are going to take a substantial hit financially.  Substantial.  This only perpetuates MLB's problem of the haves and have nots.

But it is step one to a larger war for the future of the sport.  The question is if baseball is willing to have that war when the next CBA comes out or if they roll over and continue to blindly believe everything is fine.  (Think: dog in the burning room kind of "everything is fine")

 

[Dave Borton]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

The Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs and Dodgers will be able to use their revenue advantage to get the top players but the Twins should be on a level playing field with the rest of the league.

Listening to the Yanks via radio broadcast, the revenue from ads must be phenomenal. Sterling and sidekick Susan continuously, I mean continuously read 10-second spots during the inning rather than fill with baseball banter.

I finally gave up on them and turned into KC broadcasters. But the revenue stream in NY is immeasurable. The $310MM payroll vs Twins $130MM shows the disparity of rev's that stream in the largest market. As Leviathan asks, will MLB wrestle the bear sooner or later?

[laloesch]

34 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Save them?  In the short term they are going to take a substantial hit financially.  Substantial.  This only perpetuates MLB's problem of the haves and have nots.

It would not surprise me one bit if the Twins slash payroll again this offseason ANY WAY they can, probably in the range of 20-25 million.

[Schmoeman5]

1 season too late for some. It was an avenue suggested last year. But it was a last chance money grab no matter who it pissed off. Now the 130 million payroll is going to look huge in the future. 

[bean5302]

38 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Save them?  In the short term they are going to take a substantial hit financially.  Substantial.  This only perpetuates MLB's problem of the haves and have nots.

But it is step one to a larger war for the future of the sport.  The question is if baseball is willing to have that war when the next CBA comes out or if they roll over and continue to blindly believe everything is fine.  (Think: dog in the burning room kind of "everything is fine")

 

48% of local revenues (up from 31% in the previous CBA) go to the rev share pool.
100% of the national TV deals go the rev share pool.

The largest source of revenue for any team (other than the Sacramento Athletics next year) is seating attendance. Get butts in the seats; make money. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1459400/mlb-revenue-by-type/

If the Twins sold out Target Field for the year at the average MLB ticket price, the Twins game day revenue from tickets and concessions would be about $250MM. Right now, they're making about $90MM. Nobody to blame for that other than the Pohlad's. The difference in revenue between being good at marketing and where they currently are is worth 4x their local TV revenue contracts.

[SF Twins Fan]

Why don't the major sports teams in Minnesota come together to produce a package similar to the YES Network.  Between the Twins, Wolves, Lynx, Wild, and MN United they should be able to come up with sports package that provides streaming capabilities and also the ability to sell to Directv and comcast.  They would then be able to share the production costs between the teams.

[bean5302]

Incidentally, revenue sharing is creating a group of teams (like the Tampa Bay Rays) who have designed their business model off of receiving welfare (rev share) rather than trying to put together a good product. Owners who have teams who do draw fans are getting pretty PO'd about it, actually.

You can see it in the most recent Tampa Bay Rays stadium situation. The new stadium is going to go pretty close to where the old stadium is. The reason people don't go to the Trop is not because it's a dump. It's because the vast majority of the local population who would attend a game can't reasonably get there over the bridge to St. Pete. The Rays owner knows the new stadium can't/won't draw any more fans, but he doesn't care. There will be a nice little economic boom right around the new stadium location he can profit from and his long term MLB profits/revenues are secure on the backs of teams committed to putting out a product people will pay for.

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, bean5302 said:

48% of local revenues (up from 31% in the previous CBA) go to the rev share pool.
100% of the national TV deals go the rev share pool.

The largest source of revenue for any team (other than the Sacramento Athletics next year) is seating attendance. Get butts in the seats; make money. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1459400/mlb-revenue-by-type/

If the Twins sold out Target Field for the year at the average MLB ticket price, the Twins game day revenue from tickets and concessions would be about $250MM. Right now, they're making about $90MM. Nobody to blame for that other than the Pohlad's. The difference in revenue between being good at marketing and where they currently are is worth 4x their local TV revenue contracts.

The revenue disparity between seats and media is 31% vs. 23%.  However, that 23% for MLB is nearly double what the other four major sports account for in local media revenues.  

Meaning....one of the biggest disparity points in baseball is local media revenue.  Spin that any way you want, but in MLB those revenues are an enormous factor in payroll decisions. Yes, they should be putting more butts in the seat and I share your blame for the Pohlads on that.  That doesn't change the issues within the larger context of the league.

[bean5302]

Just now, TheLeviathan said:

The revenue disparity between seats and media is 31% vs. 23%...

"Seats" is not game day revenue from butts in the seats. Add concessions, parking, merchandise sales, etc.

[TheLeviathan]

2 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

"Seats" is not game day revenue from butts in the seats. Add concessions, parking, merchandise sales, etc.

It doesn't change the issue.  MLB's local media revenues are a substantially greater piece than the other sports.  You can nearly trace payroll differentials directly to local media contract differentials.  

[Karbo]

The only way to make a deal like this to work well is to create an awful lot of interest in the team. Sure, us die hard fans will pay to watch, but they need to increase that number 3 or 4 times to make money. This teams marketing dept. doesn't seem to have a good idea on how to do this. The only other solution is to win a lot of games, and IMO that isn't very important to the ownership. It will be interesting to see what they can do to improve attendance and interest when they see a sharp drop-off in revenue!

[bean5302]

Just now, TheLeviathan said:

It doesn't change the issue.  MLB's local media revenues are a substantially greater piece than the other sports.  You can nearly trade payroll differentials directly to local media contract differentials.  

Local media revenues are dependent on interest. Put butts in the seats, create interest, increase local media revenue.

The net difference between the #3 and #27 teams in MLB in terms of local TV revenue is $40MM.
The difference between #3 and #27 in payroll? $166MM

Local media revenue disparities aren't totally insignificant, but they're not crippling, either.

[Rosterman]

Still have radio!Bad enough that Friday was on APPLEtv. They need to reach the greatest amount of people for the least amount of money. 

I have no answer. So many of us don't watch local TV anymore, even if it was just a free antenna. We have cut the cord, as my cable company charges a hefty fee for "antenna" tv above and beyond their service.

Streaming is fine, if you watch where you spend the money. But if they price the monthly package (which at $20 for say 30 games is still a good price), you lose people, as well as the #1 advertising vehicle to get people excited to come to live games.

Still have radio! WCCO Rules!

 

[Mike Sixel]

8 minutes ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

Another anology: Think frog in boiling pot.

Which isn't real....

This is not good short term. We did team a valuable lesson though. They'll cut spending a year before they have to, but where do they spend the savings?

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

Local media revenues are dependent on interest. Put butts in the seats, create interest, increase local media revenue.

The net difference between the #3 and #27 teams in MLB in terms of local TV revenue is $40MM.
The difference between #3 and #27 in payroll? $166MM

Local media revenue disparities aren't totally insignificant, but they're not crippling, either.

You purposely baked your numbers.

[BH67]

2 hours ago, DocBauer said:

I sometimes wonder if MAYBE part of the big payroll slash of last year was to put aside a little $ to prepare for this year? I mean, they did still end up with a partial TV deal didn't they?

I've intimated this in my comments here since July, unpopular as it was to write.

[Mike Sixel]

24 minutes ago, BH67 said:

I've intimated this in my comments here since July, unpopular as it was to write.

The Twins don't carry money over year to year. They've told us that in the past. 

[bean5302]

16 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

You purposely baked your numbers.

Each team's local broadcast AAV's
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/01/each-teams-local-broadcasting-arrangement.html

Take the total broadcast values, multiply by 48% and divide by the number of teams = Rev Share Portion
Take the each team's broadcast value, multiply by 52% = Team Portion
Add team portion to Rev Share Portion.
That's what each team makes, net, from local broadcast rights.

Each team's payroll
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/_/year/2024/sort/cap_total2

Take up the "cooked numbers" with Spotrac (or whatever source on MLB payroll you like) and MLBTR since the data came from them.

[TheLeviathan]

19 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Each team's local broadcast AAV's
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/01/each-teams-local-broadcasting-arrangement.html

Take the total broadcast values, multiply by 48% and divide by the number of teams = Rev Share Portion
Take the each team's broadcast value, multiply by 52% = Team Portion
Add team portion to Rev Share Portion.
That's what each team makes, net, from local broadcast rights.

Each team's payroll
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/_/year/2024/sort/cap_total2

Take up the "cooked numbers" with Spotrac (or whatever source on MLB payroll you like) and MLBTR since the data came from them.

Spotrac didnt cook the numbers.  They used 1-30.  

The simple truth is that the disparity in local media revenue is a major core of payroll disparities in baseball.  It's is guaranteed money with massive differentials.  It gets paid regardless of attendance or fan interest.

As I said...yes, the Pohalds are to blame for a lack of fan enthusiasm and gate/concession revenues.  They've been choking the life out of the fandom for years but really put the finishing touches on last fall.  

That can all be true AND the local media revenue issues can be a major problem long-term for the league.

[BH67]

53 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

The Twins don't carry money over year to year. They've told us that in the past. 

After this September and ownership's response to it, do you still believe them?

[Eris]

4 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

But it is step one to a larger war for the future of the sport.  The question is if baseball is willing to have that war when the next CBA comes out or if they roll over and continue to blindly believe everything is fine.  (Think: dog in the burning room kind of "everything is fine")

 

Unfortunately there are 2 issues that will maintain most of the current revenue/ salary structure. 1).  The players association has always been about the best players in free agency having an opportunity to make the most money. This requires a few financially well off teams to bid up salaries. 2). The big market teams will lose a number of the advantages they have in player procurement with the more revenue that is shared. These owners have no incentive to give that advantage away. 
 

There was an article on TD a few days ago about the coming end of lucrative deals from regional sports networks. This will be painful for a lot of people in baseball. Average players approaching final arbitration years or free agency will be particularly negatively impacted. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, BH67 said:

After this September and ownership's response to it, do you still believe them?

Still believe that they pocket whatever profit they can each year and don't roll it over to the next year? Absolutely. Why would we ever not believe that?